Re: Revelations
Thor Cameron (my_colours@hotmail.com)
Sat, 03 Jul 1999 22:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
>ooh, maybe I meant Rev. 12? I did :) But Rev. 13 is part of the same
>sequence of events. Satan, the Dragon, goes from failing in is direct
>assault on Heaven to calling up the beast out of the sea to rule the
>earth.
Hey, I've got another philosophical question for you.
Years ago as a young Christian, I went to a 2 week long seminar from the man
my old religion considered the world's foremost authority on Revelations.
This was still cold war years, & the USSR played heavily in his predictions.
The rapture was supposed to come before 1995, etc. I've reaserched
literally dozens of these guys & most have just made guesswork of it. Let's
face it, it's completely incomprehensible. OK, so here's the deal:
If a prophecy is incomprehensible, what's the difference between that and
the ravings of a lunatic. If it's only understandable from hindsight, what
use is it except to later say "wow, that guy knew it back then, but didn't
or couldn't tell us". In other words, where does the line exist? I could
spout ludicrice prophecies all day, & if you don't believe them it's because
they "haven't come to pass yet".
Waiting for responses.
Thor
>
>Jim
>
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com